New?As I said, they should never have abandoned it. Have a look at the start of the Belgian Grand Prix as shown in "Grand Prix". Time 1:25 And just in case you're thinking about the increased width of the current cars, don't forget that they butchered the start/finish straight at Francorchamps to have a straight, wide and boring starting grid.

New?As I said, they should never have abandoned it. Have a look at the start of the Belgian Grand Prix as shown in "Grand Prix". Time 1:25 And just in case you're thinking about the increased width of the current cars, don't forget that they butchered the start/finish straight at Francorchamps to have a straight, wide and boring starting grid.

I like it. Anything that makes the sport potentially more entertaining is good. We'll never know if it works if it isn't given a chance.

lamo wrote:

Completely de-values pole position and if that is to scale it would have starting in 4th/5th place the same as starting in 2nd place currently.

Currently being the important word. It doesn't completely de-value pole position, because the guy who qualified first still starts at the front. Relatively they may be slightly closer together, and 4th and 5th may be the same as starting 2nd currently, but there is still a ranking and an advantage based on speed on Saturday.

Given that pole position is positioned on the outside of the first corner unless he makes a better start the inside car has an overlap and better position going into the corner.

There's not enough room between cars to be safe... as for the pole position, I think it should afford the minimum advantage possible. Is it not enough advantage that you almost certainly have the fastest car?

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

There's not enough room between cars to be safe... as for the pole position, I think it should afford the minimum advantage possible. Is it not enough advantage that you almost certainly have the fastest car?

Fastest car over one lap does not always translate to fastest car over the race. Just ask anyone who boarded the Trulli train

There's not enough room between cars to be safe... as for the pole position, I think it should afford the minimum advantage possible. Is it not enough advantage that you almost certainly have the fastest car?

Fastest car over one lap does not always translate to fastest car over the race. Just ask anyone who boarded the Trulli train

You don't have to even look that far back, this season a Mercedes on pole didn't guarantee that it would be the fastest car in the race.

The [governing body] that run F1 have too much time on their hands. If there truly is sentiment out there for changing the staggered grid to a line abreast configuration, then someone needs his head examined. Discuss...http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/220 ... on-process

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Times have changes since the '60s when cars started abreast. Back then, drivers sat with their shoulders above the cockpit, between two, unprotected fuel tanks. Some had just barely begun using belts, and it wasn't until Dan Gurney that drivers started wearing full face helmets. In short, one could easily get killed at the start, so drivers knew the importance of keeping apart.

Today's bumper cars encourage all manner of scraps at the start, because the drivers are well protected and feel all but invincible. This selfish driver syndrome factor cannot be measured in a racing sim.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Times have changes since the '60s when cars started abreast. Back then, drivers sat with their shoulders above the cockpit, between two, unprotected fuel tanks. Some had just barely begun using belts, and it wasn't until Dan Gurney that drivers started wearing full face helmets. In short, one could easily get killed at the start, so drivers knew the importance of keeping apart.

Today's bumper cars encourage all manner of scraps at the start, because the drivers are well protected and feel all but invincible. This selfish driver syndrome factor cannot be measured in a racing sim.

This is true, but I doubt there is a driver that would want to risk ending his race or get a penalty because he played bumper cars. The danger of getting hurt is lower than ever before, but they are there to finish the race, not to play demolition derby.

The first three would have no chance of a slipstream, on some tracks, provided he had the space to get into position - the cars in 4th and 5th might have the advantage. But 3 abreast is mayhem, look what happened in Singapore 2017, if all cars got a relatively equal start you could get 5 abreast going into turn 1 due to the 4th and 5th getting slipstreams. Each race you would be guaranteed 4 abreast at least somewhere on the grid and probably an accident along with it.

If you do that then surely you will need to give points for pole, 2, 3 otherwise not massive incentive to go for poie at least.

Why would someone not go for pole? It's still an advantage.

I think pole carries way to much of an advantage right now. A race should never be won on Saturday.

I agree, Mikey, They would still have every reason to go for the advantage of for the pole... less trouble potential up front.

Stevey, Why should the fastest car also get a distance advantage (half a car length or more) to go with the clean side of the track? Why do you need to give them points to get the pole? Why does the pole winner need a Massive advantage? All too often an F1 race is over before it even starts for the pole winner.

The first three would have no chance of a slipstream, on some tracks, provided he had the space to get into position - the cars in 4th and 5th might have the advantage. But 3 abreast is mayhem, look what happened in Singapore 2017, if all cars got a relatively equal start you could get 5 abreast going into turn 1 due to the 4th and 5th getting slipstreams. Each race you would be guaranteed 4 abreast at least somewhere on the grid and probably an accident along with it.

Drivers won't drive in the same way. They will soon learn to expect to have several cars alongside them and stay in a straight line.

Good! They should never have abandoned it. The main difficulty is that it shows just how few cars there are on the grid.

I like the idea - but (i) they need to make sure that the gap within a row and between rows does not get too small, and(ii) it should only be done on tracks that a re wide enough (most Tilke-droms) and not in Monaco or so.

The first three would have no chance of a slipstream, on some tracks, provided he had the space to get into position - the cars in 4th and 5th might have the advantage. But 3 abreast is mayhem, look what happened in Singapore 2017, if all cars got a relatively equal start you could get 5 abreast going into turn 1 due to the 4th and 5th getting slipstreams. Each race you would be guaranteed 4 abreast at least somewhere on the grid and probably an accident along with it.

Drivers won't drive in the same way. They will soon learn to expect to have several cars alongside them and stay in a straight line.

I was more on about once they reach turn 1, most tracks do not allow even side by side with 2 cars at turn 1. If you have 3 or 4 side by side approaching the turn it will turn into carange. The drivers aren't very good at reading more than one car at once. The two occasions the cars went 3 abreast I can rememeber from 2017 resulted in crashes, Spain and Singapore. Singapore happened on the straight, but if it didn't happen there then 1 car at least was going off track come turn 1 with likely damage.

Times have changes since the '60s when cars started abreast. Back then, drivers sat with their shoulders above the cockpit, between two, unprotected fuel tanks. Some had just barely begun using belts, and it wasn't until Dan Gurney that drivers started wearing full face helmets. In short, one could easily get killed at the start, so drivers knew the importance of keeping apart.

Today's bumper cars encourage all manner of scraps at the start, because the drivers are well protected and feel all but invincible. This selfish driver syndrome factor cannot be measured in a racing sim.

This is true, but I doubt there is a driver that would want to risk ending his race or get a penalty because he played bumper cars. The danger of getting hurt is lower than ever before, but they are there to finish the race, not to play demolition derby.

Two words... Singapore, 2017

Think about Monaco... too many examples to cite.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

The more I think about this, the more I become convinced it's a bad idea.

All this discussion about the value of pole is only a small part of the equation. Think about the rest of the grid and the accordian effect... compact the grid with 3-abreast rows and everyone arrives at the first turn in a heap.

Further, I like watching mid-pack runners making passes at the start. Won't happen with the width of the circuit occupied in front. I wouldn't be encouraged to make any passes, either, if I am the middle car in a row with a maniac to either side and no road to work with. Put Alonso or Verstappen in the middle of a row and it's a recipe for disaster.

Also, with the penalty-itis in current F1, pole sitters sent to the back for non-racing reasons will not be able to get to the front as the road is essentially blocked, and there is more chance they will get caught up in the 1st corner shenanigans. If you like it that way, then fine. But I personally like watching LH or SV or MV slicing their way back to the top, where they belong.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Was very much against this when I first heard it, but am coming round to the idea. Just does not seem sensible until they address the difficulty of the cars to follow and pass in the race. If they address that then it is less of an issue if the grid order mixes a little more at the start. But perhaps it is somewhat chicken and egg – if there is more risk of losing positions at the start then they will need to design cars that can race. Of course, perhaps that is not possible because the bigger teams invest just as much making designing cars that cannot be followed.

Drivers will learn quickly if they need to be more cautious, but space at the start would of course need to be considered properly. If starting 3 abreast limits opportunities to gain places at the start then it is not meetings the objective in the first place. F1 have said they want to test things out with E-Racing and this seems like a decent candidate for that.

Times have changes since the '60s when cars started abreast. Back then, drivers sat with their shoulders above the cockpit, between two, unprotected fuel tanks. Some had just barely begun using belts, and it wasn't until Dan Gurney that drivers started wearing full face helmets. In short, one could easily get killed at the start, so drivers knew the importance of keeping apart.

Today's bumper cars encourage all manner of scraps at the start, because the drivers are well protected and feel all but invincible. This selfish driver syndrome factor cannot be measured in a racing sim.

This is true, but I doubt there is a driver that would want to risk ending his race or get a penalty because he played bumper cars. The danger of getting hurt is lower than ever before, but they are there to finish the race, not to play demolition derby.

Two words... Singapore, 2017

Think about Monaco... too many examples to cite.

Of course incidents happen and drivers do play chicken with their cars to get a position. Still they do not go and hit their cars on purpose, they are not bumper cars nor tanks, they do break down. And the few examples that it did happen like with Maldonado or Vettel, it was dealt swiftly and penalties were issued.

No matter the final feelings on this, I cannot see it being adopted due to the pre-booked tv and satellite air time slots. If it increases the chances of a track blocking pile up at the start it is going to extend the time needed for coverage of the race, and satellite air time is very expensive.

I still suspect Safety car and VSC are all considered in this as once the cars start, the clock is running, but if the first 3 cars are involved, the chances of no one being able to pass are quite high.

No cars on screen and a time over run, not good for FIA or TV companies.

Right now Formula One is stale. For too many races, after lap two, you may as well switch the channel on your TV because the finishing order will be the same. I recognize and respect the fact that some fans desire more of a time trial format, where just pure pace becomes paramount. But personally, I desire to see battling and competition. I do not want the forced entertainment that NASCAR has, where they throw a caution just to bunch the field up. I want the car designs to be altered so they can race other cars, not just set fast lap times.

Because under the present format, a fast car will qualify on pole, the driver will check out, and we will never know just how much talent, brains, and racecraft they have. And Hamilton fans, please understand this is not a dig at your hero, my statement could also include Vettel or Schumacher.

Doing preliminary testing with e-sports is smart. A new format can be tested without risking life or money.

But I do a lot of e-sport, I practically live in iRacing, and do a lot of racing. In fact, I am still recovering from doing the 24 Hours of Daytona this last weekend. And I will offer my opinion.

Experience, brains, racecraft, respect, and even patience separate the quality racers from the numpties who crash too frequently. The layout of the starting grid is not important, what matters is the maturity of the drivers.

Right now Formula One is stale. For too many races, after lap two, you may as well switch the channel on your TV because the finishing order will be the same. I recognize and respect the fact that some fans desire more of a time trial format, where just pure pace becomes paramount. But personally, I desire to see battling and competition. I do not want the forced entertainment that NASCAR has, where they throw a caution just to bunch the field up. I want the car designs to be altered so they can race other cars, not just set fast lap times.

Because under the present format, a fast car will qualify on pole, the driver will check out, and we will never know just how much talent, brains, and racecraft they have.

F1 by its very nature is a technology formula. Bespoke cars trying to be the fastest over a race distance. IMO, the sport is not designed to be a dicing, racing endeavor. And frankly efforts to make it so are attempts at "forced entertainment" just like NASCAR, indycar and other formulas that standardize on a single car manufacturer with standardized powertrains.

At any given point in time, one team will ALWAYS excel above the others in F1, because that team has solely brought forth some innovation that sets them apart. The 3-4 year dominance of one team dates to the very beginning of the sport, and continues today. It's about car technology, and only partly about the driver.

The innovative cars deserve to dominate, until the others catch-up. I grew to accept this decades ago, along with what appears to be boring racing at times.

Consequently, I don't see a need to force competition, where in other racing forms it always seems to devolve into standard chassis with standard engines, standard tires. The days of the 6-wheel cars, fields of 6, 8, 10 and 12 cylinder engines all competing together at the same time are long gone.

But in my view, where we are today is enough. Go too much further in leveling the field with standardization to force lots of overtaking, and F1 will lose its technical DNA, which is the only thing that makes it unique. F1 will become like all the other milk-toast racing sports that have fallen to a shadow of their former selves. Indycar used to be huge in the US... it barely carries an audience today.

_________________Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

From the depiction above every position would be devalued actually as the next car down the grid is closer to you. Current grid formation is staggered with a full car length offset. With this revision cars are would be staggered with a 1/3 offset.

Bringing new idea's is always refeshing but that doesnt mean all ideas will be good ideas. "If it aint broke, dont fix it."

Agreed, new radical ideas should be tested in lower formulas before they even think about it for F1. Imagine this in wet conditions, (smh) we thought singapore crash was devasting. This formation would have easily wiped out 5 cars.

I'm not convinced it is to scale. I think the plan is for 3-2-3 formation and that is the only plan, the gap between each hasn't been determined. I'd guess that there is still roughly a car's length between positions, there is just less width between them.

There's a thought. Less width between the cars reduces the opportunity (gap) for someone further back making a brilliant launch sweeping between the cars to overtake. That may offset the perceived benefit of this system.

Agreed, I had the same thought. Even if you get a decent launch, you'll have nowhere to launch in to. We'll get some nice jossling between the front 3, but other than that I think this will actually prevent some of the braver starts.

Agreed. I'd also suggest that while it may make Turn 1 more chaotic, it will necessitate drivers braking more and being more cautious as we move down the grid. The only effect I see this having will be to spread the field out even more and give a larger advantage to the front row cars.

So, as well as losing out on the spectacular starts of people like Alonso, we'd also lose out on from-the-rear-to-the-front drives of of tier one and two cars who have already been disadvantaged by stupid grid penalties, and spreading out the field is not going to lead to more overtaking.

_________________“The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.”― Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah

for the people on the "devalue pole" issue... pole position only exists out of necessity remember. And although it might be considered the fairest option available as we can't start the cars line-astern, it's pretty counter-productive to any wish to create a good 'race'. Start by giving the best guys a head-start? ....